Monday, September 15, 2014

Kremlin
Hosts International Meeting of Pro-Family Leaders and It is Accused by The
Moscow Times of Throwing a Global Neo-Con Party

By Julio
Severo

In choosing
conservative values and spearheading their defense in the United Nations,
Russia represents hope for conservative fighters in a world increasingly corrupted
by the Western debauchery of free sex, abortion imposition,
comprehensive immoral sex education, population control, homosexual
indoctrination via media and schools, participants of a forum agreed in
September 10 in Moscow, Russia.

Julio Severo and Don Feder in the Kremlin

The Large
Family and Future of Humanity Forum (LFFH Forum) opened inside
the Kremlin, bringing together conservative politicians and activists
from 45 countries, especially the U.S. This kind of event, especially
in its international format as has been made by the World Congress of Families,
was an original idea of Anatoly Antonov and Allan Carlson. In a dinner near of
an old KGB headquarters, Antonov told me that he had been tortured by KGB and
sent to the Gulag in the 1960s. He was then a 19-year-old dissident of the
Soviet tyranny. Today he is a philosopher and professor in the Lomonosov Moscow
State University.

Participants at
the LFFH Forum lashed out against abortion, homosexual “marriage” and gay
pride parades as threats to traditional values.

According to a
LifeSiteNews report, Patriarch Kirill, the Russian Orthodox leader of Moscow,
commenced the meeting with a strong endorsement of the
family. Metropolitan Hilarion, the head of external relations for the
Russian Orthodox, noted the repression against those who stand up for marriage,
giving France as an example. He called attention to Europe’s “profound
demographic crisis” and lamented that “legalized murder — abortion — is being
permitted en masse and nobody says
anything.”

Rabbi Berel
Lazar, the Chief Rabbi of Russia, said that in the West there has appeared a
“strange way of life” rejecting children. “Thank God this is not acceptable in
Russia today,” he added.

Rabbi Berel Lazar, the Chief Rabbi of Russia

Remembering that
the first law God gave to mankind was to “go forth and multiply,” Rabbi Lazar
said, “We need natural families, with a father and mother and a large number of
children.”

The president of
the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia,
addressed the forum by video. He called the family a “cornerstone” of society
rather than merely a building block and warned that there are many laws today
weakening the family.

President
Vladimir Putin sent a greeting to participants via an official
from his administration. In his message, Putin spoke about
the “large-scale demographic crisis” that civilization faces and “the
erosion of moral values” around the world.

Yet, the largest
English-language newspaper in Russia, the Moscow Times, lashed out at the
Russian and international conservatives, saying that the Russian speakers were
“corrupt” and attacking Yelena Mizulina, a conservative State Duma
lawmaker who has championed laws banning the adoption of Russian
orphans by American homosexuals and banning the promotion
of homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents.

Mizulina has
been specially targeted by the U.S. and EU sanctions against
Russia over Ukraine.

“I am sure that
in contemporary Europe it would not be possible to hold a forum
like this,” Mizulina told the audience. “Even if they are held there, they
are not hosted at the Kremlin, like in Russia, but somewhere
on the outskirts,” she said.

The international
pro-family leaders praised Russia’s role in defending moral and traditional
values.

These leaders
included:

Larry Jacobs(U.S.),
a famous pro-family leader and member of the Assemblies of God. Jacobs defended
pro-family values and attacked socialism. Reportedly, the Human Rights Campaign
asked the Obama State Department to investigate Jacobs and his attendance to
the Kremlin pro-family event. The Human Rights Campaign is the largest
homosexual militant group in the U.S.

Don Feder,
an
American-Jewish pro-family leader, also attacked socialism and defended traditional
values. He told me that he would never have expected such meeting in the
Kremlin.

Austin Ruse(U.S.),
president of Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute.

Babette Francis(Australia),
Endeavour Forum.

Ignacio Arsuaga(Spain),
president of HazteOir.org

Sharon Slater(U.S.),
president of Family Watch International. From Moscow, Slater went directly to
Geneva, where a UN measure to erode parental rights promotes more sexual
freedom to children. According to Slater, Russia was sponsoring a measure to
defeat this UN intent. She has produced the excellent documentary “Sexual
Imperialism.”

In contrast, the
Manila Times, the largest newspaper in the Philippines, had a brighter
headline: “A moral revolution in Russia.” The article said,

“Despite geopolitical problems in a number of fronts,
Russia has tried to steal a march on the West in the area of family life and
marriage, which have increasingly become major global concerns. Officially
atheist from the 1917 revolution that created the Soviet Union until the end of
the Cold War in 1991, Russia is now trying to lead the revival of Christian
values in Europe by defending the natural family from the global ‘homosexual
lobby.’”

To all people of goodwill in the everywhere: To leaders of all faiths, To the
architects of public opinion, To those at the helm of professional, women’s and
youth organizations, To the UN General Assembly, To the heads of state and
legislative bodies and To the mass media.

We, the
Participants of the Moscow International Forum “Large Family and Future of
Humanity” (September 10-11, 2014), express our profound concern because certain
countries are pursuing tenacious policies and an unprecedented propaganda
campaign, all of which is leading to the ultimate destruction of the Natural Family
− an institution that in a civilized society is the foundation of order,
state’s prosperity and social peace.

The preservation of mankind is based on a system of
family and kindred ties that are formed through the bonds of marriage between a
male and a female and the children born to them. This and only this
alone, is capable of ensuring the reproduction, stability and continuity of
human civilization. All other kinds of sexual relationships or alliances
intentionally that exclude the birth of children are meaningless for they are
devoid of the notion set down in the very definition of the word “family.” And
no political or economic interests can serve as a pretext for replacing the
true and time-tested concept of “family” by any kind of surrogate…

We appeal to all people who acknowledge the
significance and values of the Natural Family for preserving human
civilization:

· To unite
before the threat of total dehumanization of society, to set up a barrier on
the road of ideology-lined, state-supported interference in the private lives
of people, in an attempt to foist specific sexual lifestyles and preferences of
the minority upon the majority;

· To strive
to set forth legislative initiatives in the laws and constitutions of all
countries that clearly define the naturally predetermined relationships in the
Family as relationships between the male and female, their children and their
relatives;

· To
advocate and support the Natural Family as the sole source of preserving the
civilization, the life of Mankind;

· To make
use of all thematic international Days (…protection of children, the family,
etc.) whose slogans and mottos refer to traditional values, for demonstrating
their disagreement with and dissent for State-supported destructive tendencies
in the sex and family life, especially of the young people, and consolidating
the understanding of a Natural Family as the foundation of human life at the
level of the individual, society, state and civilization;

· To oppose the
cynical utilization of women as surrogate mothers in the interests of same-gender
liaisons and alliances;

· To uphold
the interests of children and to work for the adoption of legislative bans on
all types propaganda concerning homosexual relationships in the environment of
children and juveniles;

· To
initiate and support scientific research to study the conditions and
prospects of developing a Natural Family, as well as studying the negative
social and psychological effects of raising children in same-gender couples;

· To support
public efforts aimed at ensuring integrity of human life from the moment of
conception to natural death, to protect children from influences taken against
their individuality, and to uphold the child-rearing rights of parents – both
father’s and mother’s;

· To demand
initiatives and directives from the governments and heads of state to ensure
protection of the natural family, childhood, and motherhood in both, domestic and
foreign policies.

We urgently call upon the UN General Assembly,
the UN Secretary General and the UN Supreme Commissioner for Human Rights that,
while formulating the programs of the United Nations, to follow the letter and
the spirit of Article 16 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
underscores the understanding of the Human Family as the only possible and
acceptable notion to human civilization, and to proclaim in the foreseeable
future a Special Year or Program in support of the Natural Family.

We call upon all people who agree with the given
Appeal to sign it and support it for the sake of preserving life and
civilization on our Earth.

But this noble
motivation was not enough for enemies, among gay activists and socialists in
the U.S. and among radicals in Russia.

Steve Weber of CBN and Julio Severo

The Moscow Times’
accusation that we were “Global Neo-Cons” intended to portray us as “neo-conservatives”
who, according to Michael Savage in his WND column, have no relation to real
conservatives. Savage said,

“The neocons,
first in the form of the Trilateral Commission and more recently as the Carlyle
Group, thrive on military conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and
the defense contractors who work with them make enormous amounts of money. The
neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to
create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will
profit.”

Even though The
Moscow Times tried to depict us as “inciters of wars,” Savage shows the example
of Ukraine, whose intense crisis was not provoked by any of the international
pro-life leaders in the Kremlin. He said,

“The Ukrainian ‘revolution’
was fostered and encouraged by Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice and U.S. Ambassador
to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. These three were instrumental in staging a
destabilization campaign. Working with Ukrainian neo-Nazis, they fostered the
Ukrainian uprising.” Neocons, according to Savage, are avidly fighting for U.S.
geopolitical expansion in Ukraine.

Kayla, a very beautiful
American Mormon blonde young woman in the Moscow event, told me that she was a
missionary to Crimea before the Russian annexation. She said that she learnt
Russian in Crimea because everybody there speaks Russian. She was in the event
representing pro-life Mormons in the U.S.

Neocons, who
work to promote the supremacy of U.S. geopolitical interests, including the gay
supremacy that is now top priority in the U.S. foreign policy, are no friends
of American pro-family leaders and international pro-family leaders like me. So
The Moscow Times’ accusation is plainly silly.

These
geopolitical interests provoke confusion among some leaders.

Before my trip
to Moscow, I consulted some pro-life leaders in Brazil and they were “sure”
that the pro-life meeting in the Kremlin was a “Putin’s strategy to dominate the
worldwide pro-life movement.” With this view, making us “Putin’s puppets,” I
was afraid to go. But my friend Scott Lively, who knows Russia very well,
assured me that I should go.

No international
group gave more support to Russian pro-life leaders than Americans did. But
even they suffered the same dilemmas and worries I did, being discouraged by
other Americans intent on rejecting Russian pro-life efforts as just political maneuvers.
Yet, when dealing with politics, every politician (whether Russian or Brazilian
or American) uses us, and we should equally “use” them for pro-family
objectives.

The pressure on
us came from West and East. If in the West we faced being labeled “Putin’s
puppets,” the Russian press treated us just as puppets of Obama and his neocon comrades.

Both charges are
false, of course, because our motivation is to defend family values and life.
While Russia keeps fighting the homosexual agenda in its own nation and at the
United Nations, we international pro-family leaders will help Russia. If Russia
backtracks in its pro-family stances, we will support any other nation, big or
small, willing to defend the family against the international anti-family onslaught
massively funded by Western organizations, foundations, institutions and
nations.

If we had any
resemblance to neocons, this massive funding, especially from George Soros,
would be available to us too. Rather, our funding is often dependent on small
and humble donations.

Thanks to my
readers and supporters, I was able to represent Brazil in this historic pro-family
event in the Kremlin. People from Brazil, the U.S., Romania, Guatemala and
Bolivia sent me enough donations to allow me to attend this event. So by their
support, I represented also, in a certain measure, these nations.

My gratitude
also to Alexey Komov and all the other Russian pro-family leaders who took care
of us in Moscow and to Monica Reissenweber for my short stay in a hotel in
Frankfurt, Germany.

1 comment
:

At the moment we have the right to choose (inoffensively) the words we use (and for that matter those we choose not to) - it is vitally important that we use this freedom of choice wisely.

I am sometimes gay (not homosexual) and I reserve the right to not use the word gay to describe anyone or any matter relating to homosexuality and would encourage others for the sake of clarity to do likewise. The word homosexual is clear enough to convey what is being meant without unnecessarily causing offence to those who are heterosexuals as a consequence of misinterpretation. I also civilly object to being described as ‘straight’. It has connotations of inflexibility, intolerance and when placed alongside the term gay as its opposite then it can also be interpreted as sad.

A relationship between persons of the same sex is exactly that - a same-sex relationship. It is also accurate to describe some of those same-sex relationships as legalised. In such circumstances, no reference to the term ‘marriage’ is necessary. Carelessness in how we use vocabulary has resulted in us surrendering vital aspects of our language; it has not been hijacked. The correct use of language in this matter is not unimportant. If we continue to be ‘language lazy’ and careless then we will find it so much harder to resist the suppressing of the terms mother and father, husband and wife and so on from a wide range of instances such as official forms, school books etc. However, I would warn those who would adopt the practice of vocabulary accuracy, (which should be only be done with a spirit of love and tolerance), will at some stage attract hostility, but rather than that being a deterrent it should be an encouragement. Those who value the traditional use of the terms marriage, gay and straight need to be encouraged to use those terms only in the context of their original meaning.

I would also encourage those who are accused of being homophobic to calmly challenge any such broad and ambiguous charge by requesting specific details when so accused, and when the cloak of ambiguity has been removed then such accusations are more charitably and non patronisingly dealt with in an edifying and illuminative manner (that’s not to say that such edification and illumination will be welcome) by those who are genuinely well intentioned and informed.

Though some organisations and individuals may even vigorously oppose the current attack on marriage, their continued insistence in language surrender e.g. gay, straight, and gay ‘marriage’ instead of (legalised) same sex relationships; the term ‘guys’ to describe a group of both men and women or even a group of women, has been a significant factor in contributing to the circumstances we now find ourselves in.

The campaign for the legalisation of same-sex relationships is not an equality or inclusiveness issue. It is also not a matter of political correctness. Neither is it primarily about the redefinition of marriage, it is about the redefinition of morality with the ultimate aim of the eradication of Christianity. Legalised same-sex relationships and the redefinition of marriage will be used to stealthily compel society (particularly through the education system) to embrace rather than tolerate practices and circumstances which people should have the right and freedom to civilly disagree with.

In conclusion I would advise you that I believe that every human person is a unique and irreplaceable gift created by our loving God, and therefore must be treated with love, respect and dignity, which of course applies to those who would disagree with me.Mr J Quinn